Preview

SibScript

Advanced search

The Dialogical Nature of Localized Filmonyms

https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-3-830-838

Abstract

The article introduces readers to the problem of localization of English filmonyms as exemplified by a subgroup of film titles with a dialogic nature. The research features the phenomena of mass communication discursivity based on film titles with a dialogic nature in modern Russian film distribution. The method of typological synchronous comparison (juxtaposition) allowed the author to compare filmonyms and their translations in order to discover their functional peculiarities, similarities, and differences. The material shows that modern cinematography, unlike film industry abroad, makes an active use of dialogical filmonyms as a manipulative instrument of attracting filmgoers to cinema halls. The translation activates an adaptive tactics in order to accustom filmonyms to the peculiarities of the accepting cultural background. The classification revealed that a range of filmonyms with a dialogical nature, i. e. exclamations, stickers, appeals, declarations, and questions, reflect the mass conscience due to their emotivity. In the last decades, the shift in mass conscience signifies the tendency for tolerance to everything immodest, impudent, seductive, and blatant, which was previously uncharacteristic for the Russian film industry. The article postulates that learning a foreign language implies the ability to tune on the same wavelength with the foreign culture, whereas disrespect for the foreign cultural specifics doesn’t facilitate the cultural dialogue and mutual understanding.

About the Author

S. A. Pankratova
St. Petersburg State University of Film and Television
Russian Federation
13, Pravda St., St. Petersburg, 191119


References

1. Petukhova T. I. Language representation of conceptual spaces as a factor of value aspect formation in cinematic text. Kognitivnye issledovaniia iazyka, 2016, (26): 357–359. (In Russ.)

2. Venuti L. Translator’s Invisibility. London; N. Y.: Routledge, 1995, 205.

3. Nefedova L. A. Lexical means of manipulative influence in everyday communication (based on the material of the modern German language). Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Moscow, 1997, 230. (In Russ.)

4. Fedorov A. V. Fundamentals of the general theory of translation. Moscow: Vyssh. shk., 1983, 149. (In Russ.)

5. Shveitser A. D. Translation and Linguistics: The Evolution of Connections. Translation Theory and Methods of Training Translators: Proc. Sci.-Pract. Conf. (Moscow, February 13, 1999). Moscow: Voennyi un-t, 1999, 254–257. (In Russ.)

6. Mishchenko I. A. Problems of training translators from the employer's point of view. Translation. Language. Culture: Proc. VII Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf. (Saint-Petersburg, April 08, 2016). Saint-Petersburg: LGU im. А. А. Pushkina, 2016, 222–225. (In Russ.)

7. Leontyeva K. I. Discurseontology, the subject principle, perspectivation: an integrative agent-centered sociocognitive perspective on translating. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki, 2017, (4): 69–79. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2017-4-69-79

8. Zalevskaya A. A. What is there behind the word? Problems of the interface theory of the word meaning. Moscow: DirektMedia, 2014, 328. (In Russ.)

9. Kamovnikova N. E. Sword law: fiction translation in the context of the language policy. Translation. Language. Culture: Proc. VII Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf. (Saint-Petersburg, April 08, 2016). Saint-Petersburg: LGU im. А. А. Pushkina, 2016, 154–158. (In Russ.)

10. Cheung M. From "Theory" to "Discourse": The Making of a Translation Anthology. Translating Others. Manchester: St Gerome, 2006, vol. 1, 87–101.

11. Nida E. A. Translating Meaning. San Dimas, Cal., 1982, 123.

12. House J., Blum-Kulka S. Introduction in Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verla, 1986, 240.

13. Maturana H. R., Varela F. J. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht; London: Reidel, 1980, 141.

14. Zalevskaya А. А. Corporation semantics and integrative approach to language. Linguistic paradigms and linguodidactics 7. Irkutsk: BGUEP, 2002, 9–21. (In Russ.)

15. Geeraerts D., Cuykens H. Introducing cognitive linguistics. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, eds. Geeraerts D., Cuyckens H. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 3–21.

16. Kravtchenko A. V. The cognitive horizon of linguistics. Irkutsk: BGUEP, 2008, 316. (In Russ.)

17. Demyankov V. Z. Knowledge transfer and cognitive manipulation. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki, 2017, (4): 5–13. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2017-4-5-13

18. Linell P. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998, 123.

19. Konovalenko M. Iu. Lies in communication: how to protect yourself from deception. Moscow: Sfera, 2001, 96. (In Russ.)

20. Vakhitov S. V. The use of cinematography in a literary text. Actual problems of the development of the film and television industry in modern Russia, ed. Evmenov A. D. Saint-Petersburg: SPbGIKiT, 2016, part 2, 179–183. (In Russ.)

21. Nelyubina Yu. A. Professional signs as basis of inference operation in film discourse. Kognitivnye issledovaniia iazyka, 2016, (26): 550–554. (In Russ.)


Review

For citations:


Pankratova S.A. The Dialogical Nature of Localized Filmonyms. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2019;21(3):830-838. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-3-830-838

Views: 494


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2949-2122 (Print)
ISSN 2949-2092 (Online)